欧盟国家高等教育资助模式对高等教育可及性的影响

IF 0.6 Q4 BUSINESS
Nadežda Kučaidze, Artūras Jurgelevičius
{"title":"欧盟国家高等教育资助模式对高等教育可及性的影响","authors":"Nadežda Kučaidze, Artūras Jurgelevičius","doi":"10.31520/2616-7107/2020.4.4-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Higher education funding is relevant topic and widely analysed by scientist all other the world. Nowadays there is very big difference between higher education funding models across European Union countries – students have to pay very high fees for their studies in one countries, while in other countries – students have no obligations to pay for their studies at all, or have to pay very low tuition fees. All EU member states declare importance of HE for the future of economic, individual and society wellbeing. With respect to cost-sharing principle in higher education funding, higher education funding models can be divided into four models: Low-fee-High-subsidy; Low-fees-Low-subsidy; High-fees-High-subsidy and High-fee-Low subsidy. \nAim and tasks. The aim of this article is to perform comparative analysis of two extremely different higher education funding models, which are applied in European Union states – Low-fee-High-subsidy higher education funding model (LFHS model) and High-fee-Low-subsidy higher education funding model (HFLS model). \nResults. The results of scientific research shows, that LFHS and HFLS models, which were analysed, have a different impact on access to higher education (i.e. gross enrolment rate (GER), GER male, GER female and HE graduation rate (HEGR) in EU countries. \nConclusions. Tuition fees (max., min., net, normative) have a statistically significant, but not only positive or negative impact on enrolment to HE and graduation of HE, as well as for women and men enrolment to HE (GER male, GER female) – it depends on funding model EU state applies. Max. need-based grants have positive impact only in LFHS model case as well as min. need-based grants. In addition, the results of research show, that there is gender inequality – women enrolment to HE exceed men enrolment at most in HFLS model. Men are more likely to study in countries with higher need-based grants (for instance, in LFHS model countries). Counties with higher GDP per capita are more likely to apply LFHS model, than countries with lower GDP  per capita.","PeriodicalId":29705,"journal":{"name":"Economics Ecology Socium","volume":"164 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of high fee-low-subsidy and low fee-high-subsidy higher education funding models on higher education access in European Union countries\",\"authors\":\"Nadežda Kučaidze, Artūras Jurgelevičius\",\"doi\":\"10.31520/2616-7107/2020.4.4-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. Higher education funding is relevant topic and widely analysed by scientist all other the world. Nowadays there is very big difference between higher education funding models across European Union countries – students have to pay very high fees for their studies in one countries, while in other countries – students have no obligations to pay for their studies at all, or have to pay very low tuition fees. All EU member states declare importance of HE for the future of economic, individual and society wellbeing. With respect to cost-sharing principle in higher education funding, higher education funding models can be divided into four models: Low-fee-High-subsidy; Low-fees-Low-subsidy; High-fees-High-subsidy and High-fee-Low subsidy. \\nAim and tasks. The aim of this article is to perform comparative analysis of two extremely different higher education funding models, which are applied in European Union states – Low-fee-High-subsidy higher education funding model (LFHS model) and High-fee-Low-subsidy higher education funding model (HFLS model). \\nResults. The results of scientific research shows, that LFHS and HFLS models, which were analysed, have a different impact on access to higher education (i.e. gross enrolment rate (GER), GER male, GER female and HE graduation rate (HEGR) in EU countries. \\nConclusions. Tuition fees (max., min., net, normative) have a statistically significant, but not only positive or negative impact on enrolment to HE and graduation of HE, as well as for women and men enrolment to HE (GER male, GER female) – it depends on funding model EU state applies. Max. need-based grants have positive impact only in LFHS model case as well as min. need-based grants. In addition, the results of research show, that there is gender inequality – women enrolment to HE exceed men enrolment at most in HFLS model. Men are more likely to study in countries with higher need-based grants (for instance, in LFHS model countries). Counties with higher GDP per capita are more likely to apply LFHS model, than countries with lower GDP  per capita.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economics Ecology Socium\",\"volume\":\"164 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economics Ecology Socium\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31520/2616-7107/2020.4.4-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics Ecology Socium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31520/2616-7107/2020.4.4-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

介绍。高等教育经费问题是世界各国科学家广泛研究的热点问题。如今,欧盟国家之间的高等教育资助模式存在很大差异——学生在一个国家必须支付很高的学费,而在另一个国家,学生根本没有义务支付学费,或者只需要支付很低的学费。所有欧盟成员国都宣称高等教育对未来经济、个人和社会福祉的重要性。根据高等教育经费的成本分担原则,高等教育经费模式可分为四种模式:低费高补;Low-fees-Low-subsidy;高收费-高补贴和高收费-低补贴。目标和任务。本文的目的是对欧盟国家采用的两种截然不同的高等教育资助模式——低费用-高补贴高等教育资助模式(LFHS模式)和高费用-低补贴高等教育资助模式(HFLS模式)进行比较分析。结果。科学研究结果表明,LFHS和HFLS模型对欧盟国家高等教育获得(即毛入学率(GER)、男性GER、女性GER和高等教育毕业率(HEGR))有不同的影响。结论。学费(最高):(最小,净,规范)对高等教育的入学率和毕业率,以及女性和男性高等教育入学率(男性,女性)有统计学意义,但不仅是积极或消极的影响-这取决于欧盟国家适用的资助模式。Max。以需求为基础的补助只有在低收入家庭卫生服务模式案例和最低需求为基础的补助中才有积极影响。此外,研究结果表明,高等教育存在性别不平等,在HFLS模型中,女性入学率最多超过男性入学率。男性更有可能在基于需求的资助较高的国家(例如,在低收入家庭福利制度示范国家)学习。人均GDP较高的国家比人均GDP较低的国家更有可能采用LFHS模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The impact of high fee-low-subsidy and low fee-high-subsidy higher education funding models on higher education access in European Union countries
Introduction. Higher education funding is relevant topic and widely analysed by scientist all other the world. Nowadays there is very big difference between higher education funding models across European Union countries – students have to pay very high fees for their studies in one countries, while in other countries – students have no obligations to pay for their studies at all, or have to pay very low tuition fees. All EU member states declare importance of HE for the future of economic, individual and society wellbeing. With respect to cost-sharing principle in higher education funding, higher education funding models can be divided into four models: Low-fee-High-subsidy; Low-fees-Low-subsidy; High-fees-High-subsidy and High-fee-Low subsidy. Aim and tasks. The aim of this article is to perform comparative analysis of two extremely different higher education funding models, which are applied in European Union states – Low-fee-High-subsidy higher education funding model (LFHS model) and High-fee-Low-subsidy higher education funding model (HFLS model). Results. The results of scientific research shows, that LFHS and HFLS models, which were analysed, have a different impact on access to higher education (i.e. gross enrolment rate (GER), GER male, GER female and HE graduation rate (HEGR) in EU countries. Conclusions. Tuition fees (max., min., net, normative) have a statistically significant, but not only positive or negative impact on enrolment to HE and graduation of HE, as well as for women and men enrolment to HE (GER male, GER female) – it depends on funding model EU state applies. Max. need-based grants have positive impact only in LFHS model case as well as min. need-based grants. In addition, the results of research show, that there is gender inequality – women enrolment to HE exceed men enrolment at most in HFLS model. Men are more likely to study in countries with higher need-based grants (for instance, in LFHS model countries). Counties with higher GDP per capita are more likely to apply LFHS model, than countries with lower GDP  per capita.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信